Is alpha played competitively anymore? It seems like 3s is played for just team tourney’s?
As I’ve said before in other threads, more than anything in the world I want a Street Fighter II 2. Not a Street Fighter IV, but a true sequel to SFII that builds on the same chess-like gameplay without being overly focused on metering or universal systems.
#1 - Street Fighter 2 is not chess. One is a free license board game, the other is a CapCom owned video game.
#2 - “Good” or “that good” has little to do with being alive and very well. Example? Tic-Tac-Toe (yes: [media=youtube]NHWjlCaIrQo"]Tic-Tac-Toe) is [URL=“http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=tic+tac+toe&x=0&y=0”[/media] and (doing) very well.
(NOTE: assuming “good” refers depth and quality of gameplay, and not the viral existence and sheer survivability of the game)
Video games suffer from a number of factors that more traditional games don’t:
- licenses
- hardware+software set-up required
- hardware install base
- rotation of hardware generations
- inability to play across different hardware
- development cost
- aging graphics
- INSERT YOUR OWN HERE
There are a LOT of video games that have proven to be both popular and long lasting in their core form. (sometime augmented with facelifts)
While others didn’t stand the test of time.
The question is, is Street Fighter II one of those games?
Y’know, I think it is.
It is a classic, no one will argue that. However, will it end up being one of those you only play it online games?
I was caught in a daze for several minutes, as if time as I knew it never existed. My mouth was dry and my throat was course. Suddenly my phone rang and snapped me out of boyish day dream… Thank you Milo, that was awsome.
It looks that way, unless they radically re-design the single player experience.
-
MANY video games are online/multi-player only.
-
Fighting Games largely are stagnant and locked into the cookie cutter formula with regards to the single player experience. There has been some exploration with games like SF4 or Soul Calibre (dunno what version it was or if it continued in the series), but there has been nothing to Fighting Games equivalent to what Halflife did for FPS.
-
What could be a major step in the games development is if GGPO and 2DF find a way to allow players to play each other.
Q: "What? Couldn’t players just jump onto one or
the other and do it that way?"
A: "Yes. Just as someone could log off XBL and log
on to PSN.
Moving the play community from disparate entities to a masterlist of people (set-up like GGPO or Magic Online where players can see each other; NOT set-up like SF4) would be huge.
Even if it takes a THIRD program to “sniff” out the playerbases of each game and then track it for players, let them let them (through the 3rd program) chat with all players, watch all players, challenge all palyers, etc.
This would set a precedent, and it would unify efforts.
I imagine there are natural influences that would push the 2 from not co-mingling: technical difficulty, requirement for cooperation and agreement, threat to sense of personal identity, etc.
(NOTE: I think having both GGPO and 2DF is GOOD, because there is not risk that one going out or growing stagnant will kill everything; I think this outweighs any possible impact on fractured community) -
Another step would be to connect all community fronts for a game: places to play, forums, harware info, marketing, game rentals, developers, related medium (comic, book, movie, etc.), player community, player identity, etc. (some of these are link through places like SRK, but does GGPO link to SRK? Does Capcom link to GGPO? Does SRK work to recruit/support general population that stumbles across it?
-
HDR vs. GGPO
(NOTE: I mentioned GGPO, but I often include 2DF in the category with it, I just list one for convenience; also SF4 or other games that don’t have non-corporate controlled communities are often included for what I say about HDR)
HDR is a game that is full of problems:
- the game cannot be emulated; players are reliant on CapCom to determine when, where, and for how long they can play
- the game cannot be modified (bug fixed, balanced, improved player matching/lag/feature tuning+adding/etc.) without CapCom (no “house rules” like board games; no player mods like PC gaming communities)
- player communities are capped by 360/PS3 install bases (and for the most part excluding geographic regions it was not released in); player communities are fractured which diminishes the play experience AND the growth and incarnation of the community.
GGPO/2DF (and their successors or future incarnations)
May be the best bet for the survival and long term development of the game. - they put the game on the PC and online. That opens it up to the mod community, ensures it can’t be demographic locked down or dropped by proprietary corporate console gaming networks (or by a single proprietary online PC gaming provider)
I’ll delve into more stuff if there discussion/interest develops.
See, that’s EXACTLY why they did’t put giant breasts on asians.
I think part of the problem now is that new players want that “awesome graphics” look. In this new age, its about how pretty or advanced it looks. They can’t just sit down and enjoy an 8-16 bit game like the old sf, metroid, zelda, and mario type games.
They are classics to us, not to them.
That’s not saying we can’t get new players, but its harder to get them interested.
You’re talking about the “new hotness” effect.
People are drawn to the new hotness.
They want to jump on band wagons or be able to keep pace with what’s-what around the water cooler.
It fuels mobs, it builds bubbles, and it drives fashion.
Most things don’t stay the new hotness, unless they re-invent themselves over and over. (or drive the genre)
I think most here would prefer ST/HDR to undergo minute refinement, and not fashionable overhauling.
Hyper Fighting was a refinement, and the casual player fled.
SF4 was an overhauling, and the casual player flocked.
(NOTE: sometimes the refinement and overhauling combine in the form of big leaps, but this is hard to sustain)
Does HDR/ST need a “new hotness” component to keep it “successful” as time progresses?
Probably depends on what else is driving the game, and what you want out of the scene.
What do you want out of the scene?
- critical mass of competition to ensure you can find a game and ensure a certain level of ability in your opponent?
- overwhelming populartiy to ensure that the gaming community is afire with chatter, the game is universally celebrated, and your name is known?
- INSERT WHAT YOU WANT HERE
Most my efforts have been to improve the player aids out there so players can get better.
Get better faster and easier, like an MMO making a newbie zone with massive XP bonus so new players can catch up to existing players.
Some players ENJOY their opponent not knowing as much as them.
It allows them to win, to dazzle, to keep an edge.
This is especially compelling within a tournament scene, where tourney results don’t have an “*” indicating the quality of the competition.
It’s also compelling within a closed community with heated rivalries, where winning is more important than competing.
One thing I have noticed lately… it seems there are WAY more MW/EC rooms than west coast rooms. I have been having a hard time finding rooms with low pings.
Anyone else see this?
Being a MW guy with a very good connection, there’s very few people in the US or Europe I have bad pings with. But you are not the first person I’ve heard that from…
Sorry, I thought it was obvious that comparing SF2 to chess involved the respective depth of game play and simplicity of rules of both games – not the notion that they are actually the same game.
Not comparable, TTT is a little kid’s game and little kids generally like it a lot. For the demographic to which it appeals, TTT has clearly withstood the test of time.
Not sure why you’re listing these, are they meant to explain the decline of SF2? If so, to what degree vs. my observation that SF2 has game play flaws that keep it from being appealing to successive generations of players? (Note that item #6 on your list isn’t a major issue, since that’s a one-time setback, and that item #7 is irrelevant since graphics can be updated at any time, as is the case with HDR.)
Also, I would point out that just as video games suffer factors that board/parlor games don’t, they enjoy many exclusive benefits that should contribute to their longevity vs. parlor games:
[LIST=1]
[] Far more open to creativity in design
[] User not required to maintain physical components (boards, cards, game pieces, dice, etc.)
[] Richer, far more interactive single-player experience (e.g. Solitaire vs. take your pick)
[] Computerized refereeing (No human error in the interpretation or application of rules)
[] Real-time progression in most cases (i.e. no limitation of players having to play in-turn)
[] Much faster and more frequent refinement/error correction (i.e. downloadable updates/patches)
[] Far less expensive distribution (i.e downloads vs. stocking and shipping physical components)
[] etc.
[/LIST]
Obviously, there is overlap in both lists when one considers that any board/parlor game can be turned into a video game. (In fact, that might well negate the validity of making these lists at all.)
No, I would definitely say that SF2 is dying chiefly because, as great as it is, it is just not at the level of game design of so much as Scrabble or Monopoly, to say nothing of chess or poker or Mah-Jongg or Dungeons & Dragons.
Again, a nearly twenty-year run is nothing to sneeze at; that is hugely impressive, just not transcendent.
I have no comment on the rest of Milo’s post, but as an off-topic aside, I strongly doubt that Monopoly is popular because it has good game design.
I’d be careful with that relation though. SF2 <> chess is strictly a comparison to the mindgames.
They are vastly different since each player can have completely different “pieces” than each other.
There should be other comparisons than just chess. Something that can relate both aspects. Like war?
Totally. There is just so much evidence to back this up.
Yep.
Of course, I think that SF2’s flaws (i.e. the ones left unaddressed in HDR, or introduced by it) play a big role in what players think of it vs. SF4.
I think a better question is, should SF2’s rotting corpse be propped up and dragged around?
I am starting to think NO.
Capcom has failed to take SF2 to the next level (SFAlpha and SF3 were lesser games, not sure about SF4 yet), but that doesn’t mean that I want SF2’s fun but flawed ass hanging around keeping fighting games from transcending Super Turbo.
Cool, always nice to have some solid input from an experienced member.
Milo, you make it sound like alpha wasn’t flawed, and IV isn’t flawed, and 3s isn’t flawed.
Every SF has had flaws. However, SFII isn’t about subsystems. That’s one of the things I like most about it.
shrug I can say the same of Street Fighter. There are plenty of elements to it that made it appealing to the masses apart from its game design. (Note that the player base has dwindled drastically, and is now down to a handful of regular participants, despite its becoming a progressively better game over the years.)
You’re just interpreting what I wrote that way.
I think that most people here realize what I meant, i.e. that Capcom acknowledged and attempted to address the serious problems in SF2 with some of the mechanics in successive Street Fighter titles (and that they didn’t succeed, mostly).
That is correct.
Remember:
"#1 - Street Fighter 2 is not chess. One is a free license board game, the other is a CapCom owned video game."
Just as people are not trees, and should not be expected to have the same longevity as trees.
What other video game (NOT BASED ON A NON-VIDEO GAME) enjoys continued play in its original form 20 years after its release?
What are you talking about?
Many of the people who bought and many of the people who play/played HDR/HF are young people.
Since when are ports FREE for devs to make/market/distribute/license/etc…
Hint, #7 is related to #6.
Graphic updates are dev costs.
Your assessment of what benefits should contribute to longevity seems off to me.
That stuff seems to work for free PC games based on non-video games.
Other than that, the vast majority of video games really haven’t demonstrated much longevity without major overhauling.
SF2 is more alive now in the US than it was from 1996 - 2005.
I think you are painting drama for the series only because you like to see drama on the center stage.
The other games you list are not video games.
List video games (non-card/boardgame ports) that have aged as well.
Nothing is transcendent.
But as video games go, ST enjoys more celebration in its classic form than just about any other game out there.
Actually, people do live as long as some trees (e.g. boxelders and persimmons).
Likewise, we humans aren’t elephants or parrots – yet they live about as long as us (I’m pretty sure).
Chess is a game of strategy, Street Fighter is a game of strategy. They clearly have enough in common that comparing them is infinitely more valid than comparing people to trees.
I’ve mentioned SF2’s great longevity at least twice, already.
“In its original form”? Are you saying that SF2 would have lasted as long as it did if World Warrior had been the sole release?
Game design. (i.e. Not trees)
Notably, at a rate, percentage, and overall enthusiasm that pales in comparison to the game’s heyday of fifteen or so years ago – which is very significant (and part of my point).
What do you care? “If you build it, they will come,” right? If a game is good enough at its inception, then getting the funds to propagate it indefinitely shouldn’t be a major consideration, right? Market demand will make that a no-brainer for the funding sector.
Then why are you splitting them into two separate points?
Try removing those aspects from video games in general, and see what happens. (Just do it in your head, that’ll probably be enough.)
Street Fighter is maybe more alive now than it was then (“then” not even being SF’s heyday), thanks to SF4, not SF2.
And I think that you are countering me because you reflexively like to attack any statement that could be considered bold (manifested by your “nothing is transcendent” proclamation). Who cares?
Fine, let’s see how long before people start writing plays and filming dramas about Street Fighter, like they do with chess. (Note: Don’t bother typing anything in that Google search field, I already did and the best I could find was [media=youtube]IvXkLBLoA0Q[/media].)
I can see Ben Kingsley now, coaching some wonder kid at playing Ryu. “Don’t move until you see it!”
Right, and my point is that, as video games go, SF2 is probably about done, and if it is, fine. A twenty-year run is laudable, but it does not automatically warrant propping up the corpse. People are out there trying to make a better fighting game, I’m definitely much more for that than I am for pretending that SF2 deserves to be around forever.
Except they haven’t really made a better fighting game yet. It took SFII a long time to give players anything more than special moves and normal moves.
The implementation of subsystems have regularly been bad in the long run.
I like how bare bones ST/HDR is. However, after regularly playing good ryus, boxers, and claws. Then looking at hawk and fei and even cammy, the inner balance in the game can be very atrocious at times.